A Number of Organizations Caution Against Use of FC and RPM

Following a thorough, year-long, peer-reviewed process based on systematic literature reviews, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) adopted position statements about Facilitated Communication (FC) and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM).

FC is a discredited technique that should not be used. There is no scientific evidence of the validity of FC, and there is extensive scientific evidence—produced over several decades and across several countries—that messages are authored by the "facilitator" rather than the person with a disability. Furthermore, there is extensive evidence of harms related to the use of FC. Information obtained through the use of FC should not be considered as the communication of the person with a disability.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Facilitated communication [Position Statement].

Use of RPM is not recommended because of prompt dependency and the lack of scientific validity. Furthermore, information obtained through the use of RPM should not be assumed to be the communication of the person with a disability.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Rapid prompting method [Position Statement].

These position statements have received field wide acceptance. Both position statements express lack of support for the practice in question and cite an absence of high-quality evidence of efficacy.

ASHA is not the only organization raising concerns about FC and RPM. Other organizations share similar positions:

Discourage Use of FC

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Approved by Council, October 20, 1993; Reviewed June 2008)

Facilitated Communication: "Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that FC is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation. In particular, information obtained via (FC) should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment decisions." *Endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics

American Academy of Pediatrics (January 1, 2020)

Identification, Evaluation, and Management of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder: "Current scientific evidence does not support the use of facilitated communication in which a nonverbal individual is guided to communicate. This differs from AAC, in which the individual is taught to communicate independently.”

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (January 9, 2019)

Position Statement on Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method: “Based on the current scientific evidence, the Board does not support the use of Facilitated Communication (FC) or the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) as modes of communication for people with disabilities. In the case of FC, there is no scientific evidence supporting its validity, and there is considerable evidence that the messages are authored by the facilitator rather than by the individual with a disability.”

American Psychological Association (Adopted in Council, August 14, 1994)

Resolution on Facilitated Communication: "…APA adopts the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy."

Arizona [PDF] (Approved June 6, 2019)

Comprehensive Medical and Dental Authorization Program Guideline: "CMDP has determined Sensory Integration Training, Auditory Integration Training, and Facilitated Communication are not medically necessary services for children with autism or developmental delays.”

Association for Behavior Analysis (1995)

Statement on Facilitated Communication: "FC is not to be confused with use of appropriately applied manual guidance or other prompts to teach communications and other skills, nor should it be confused with independent use of nonspeech communication systems that may involve letterboards, keyboards, or other symbol systems. It is the position of the Association for Behavior Analysis that FC is a discredited technique. Because of the absence of ample, objective, scientific evidence that FC is beneficial and that identifies the specific conditions under which it may be used with benefit, its use is unwarranted and unethical."

Association for Science in Autism Treatment

Facilitated Communication: "Research evidence, replicated across several hundred children with autism spectrum disorders, shows that the facilitators rather than the individuals with autism spectrum disorders control the communication and that FC does not improve language skills….Therefore, FC is an inappropriate intervention for individuals with autism spectrum disorders."

Autism & Asperger Förbundet (Autism and Asperger Association, Sweden) (June 19, 2012)

Warning about FC (Swedish: Avråder från FC): "The Autism and Asperger Association agrees that numerous studies have shown facilitated communication to be an unreliable and unproven approach. We advise against the use of facilitated communication for people with autism or mental retardation."

Autism New Jersey [PDF] (Adopted August 20, 2002; Revised January 24, 2004)

Position Statement: Treatment Recommendations: “A review of the available research on best practices leads Autism New Jersey to not recommend certain treatments: Psychoanalysis, Facilitated Communication, Auditory Integration Training/Therapy, and Secretin. While it is possible that an individual will benefit from these approaches, research evidence suggests that the majority of individuals will not benefit in a meaningful way, or at all.”

Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan (Adopted at the 1998 Annual Convention)

Resolution of the Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan against the use of "Facilitated Communication": "Numerous empirically based, peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated that facilitated communication is incapable of establishing 'unexpected literacy' or producing valid messages above the facilitated individual's previously established communicative level. Therefore, because it is the position of the Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan (BAAM) that the use of any augmentative communication technique must be based upon clear, objective, and scientifically valid evidence that the augmented communications of any individual are reliably and unambiguously attributable to that individual, BAAM does not support or endorse the use of facilitated communication as a form of therapy, communications system, or a means of making important decisions relevant to individuals whose communication is facilitated."

Canadian Paediatric Society (October 24, 2019)

Position Statement on Post-Diagnostic Management and Follow-Up Care for Autism Spectrum Disorder: “Therapies that are considered risky and ineffective include hyperbaric oxygen therapy, chelation, secretin, and the use of certain herbal products. Antibiotics, antifungals, and facilitated communication strategies are also considered to be ineffective for treating ASD.”

Centre for Augmentative & Alternative Communication (Updated March 4, 2024)

Position Statement on Expressive Methods of Communication For Persons With Limited Speech That Require the Input of a Trained Supporter: “Since there is a possibility that these methods therefore undermine the agency of the person with limited speech by attributing to them messages composed by the facilitator, it is the position of the Centre for AAC that 1) FC cannot be regarded as a valid form of AAC and its use in clinical practice is strongly discouraged by the Centre for AAC; and that 2) until clear and unequivocal evidence becomes available that shows that that messages composed through RPM and S2C are authored by the person pointing to the letters and not the person holding the board, neither method can be regarded as a valid form of AAC and their use in clinical practice is strongly discouraged by the Centre for AAC.”

Heilpädagogische Forschung (Heilpädagogische Forschung Nr. 1 2003)

Resolution on Facilitated Communication (Deutsche: Gestützten Kommunikation): "Facilitated communication is consequently a technique whose effectiveness has been contradicted. Parents, educators, and therapists must be informed about the clear negative research results before they decide on FC. Since despite the clear findings it cannot ultimately be ruled out that very rare individuals can be facilitated to communicate, we encourage that in each isolated case the authenticity of the FC-messages be demonstrated under controlled conditions. This goes especially for public institutions, when school measurements, educational programs, living situations, etc. are changed based on FC-statements and whenever public funds for FC-support are demanded."

Irish Association of Speech & Language Therapists [PDF] (IASLT Council May 2017)

Position Statement on the Rapid Prompting Method: "FC and its variants such as RPM, remain illegitimate and ultimately undermine the voices of individuals with communication impairments."

International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (November 7, 2014)

ISAAC Position Statement on Facilitated Communication: "Given ISAAC's mission to promote the best possible communication abilities and opportunities for persons with limited or no functional speech, 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. The weight of evidence does not support FC and therefore it cannot be recommended for use in clinical practice."

Lakes Region Community College (Procedures for Accessing Disabilities Support Services)

Facilitated Communication: "While determination on the appropriateness of reasonable accommodations is made on a case by case basis by the Disabilities Coordinator in consultation with the instructor, the Colleges do not accept a scientifically discredited technique, such as facilitated communication, as meeting the academic standards or demonstrating student competency. In distinguishing between augmented communication and facilitated communication, in particular, the College must be satisfied that all work is being done by the student and not by an intermediary agent."

Maine Administrators of Services for Children with Disabilities (February 2000)

Report of the MADSEC Autism Task Force: Facilitated Communication: "Accumulated peer-reviewed, empirically-based research studies have not supported the effectiveness of facilitated communication. Equally important, the research has substantiated the potential for great harm….Researchers may consider further investigation using research protocols, with particular care to protect subjects and their families against harm. It is not recommended that professionals consider the use of facilitated communication."

National Autistic Society (Reviewed and Updated August 21, 2020)

Understanding and Developing Communication: “…we do not believe that facilitated communication is an appropriate intervention for autistic people, as there is evidence that it is ineffective and can lead to significant harm.”

National Council on Severe Autism (Adopted June 22, 2021)

NCSA Position Statement on Facilitated Communication: “We cannot support, however, a technique known as Facilitated Communication (FC)… Studies dating back to the 1990s have repeatedly demonstrated that the products of FC reflect the (often non-conscious) control of the facilitator and do not represent authentic communication by the disabled person… For these reasons, NCSA joins ASHA, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, the American Psychological Association, the Association for Science in Autism Treatment and over a dozen other national and international organizations in opposing the use of FC.”

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Published June 27, 2012; Updated June 12, 2021)

Clinical Guideline on Autism Spectrum Disorder in Adults: Diagnosis and Management: “Do not provide facilitated communication for autistic adults.”

New York State Department of Health (1999)

Facilitated Communication: "Because of the lack of evidence for efficacy and possible harms of using facilitated communication, it is strongly recommended that facilitated communication not be used as an intervention method in young children with autism."

New Zealand Ministries of Health and Education (March 2008; Updated July 2016; Updated 2022)

New Zealand Autism Spectrum Disorder Guideline: Recommendation on Facilitated Communication: "There has been considerable controversy about whether the facilitated output is from the person with ASD or is under the influence of the facilitator. A large number of quantitative studies show facilitator influence. There is no scientific validation of Facilitated Communication and it is not recommended."

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [PDF] (June 2016)

Assessment, Diagnosis and Interventions for Autism Spectrum Disorders: "Facilitated communication should not be used as a means to communicate with children and young people with ASD."

Speech-Language & Audiology Canada [PDF] (January 16, 2018)

Official Statement: Use of Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method: "SAC does not support use of facilitated communication and/or rapid prompting method by its members and associates in clinical practice."

Speech Pathology Australia (Developed in 2012; Updated in 2020)

Augmentative and Alternative Communication Clinical Guideline*: "There is no scientific evidence to support theory argued to underpin FC that the people who use the method have an underlying movement disorder that warrants physical support and facilitation. The body of peer-reviewed literature reviewing FC research produced in the past two decades provides unequivocal evidence to guide clinicians in making evidence-based decisions on the technique. Substantial evidence now exists, including well-designed controlled trials and systematic reviews that facilitators influence the person’s message, and that they do so consciously and/or unconsciously."
Send an email to office@speechpathologyaustralia.org.au to request a copy.

Syracuse University

Communication Sciences & Disorders Statement on Facilitated Communication: “Specifically, we do not advocate for approaches, such as Facilitated Communication, where there is ambiguity regarding whether the client or a “facilitator” is the source of a message.”

Discourage Use of RPM

American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (Adopted January 9, 2019)

Position Statement on Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method: “Based on the current scientific evidence, the Board does not support the use of Facilitated Communication (FC) or the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) as modes of communication for people with disabilities…. In the case of RPM, there is a lack of scientific evidence for its validity, and concerns about message authorship similar to those for FC have been raised.”

Centre for Augmentative & Alternative Communication (Updated March 4, 2024)

Position Statement on Expressive Methods of Communication For Persons With Limited Speech That Require the Input of a Trained Supporter: “Since there is a possibility that these methods therefore undermine the agency of the person with limited speech by attributing to them messages composed by the facilitator, it is the position of the Centre for AAC that 1) FC cannot be regarded as a valid form of AAC and its use in clinical practice is strongly discouraged by the Centre for AAC; and that 2) until clear and unequivocal evidence becomes available that shows that that messages composed through RPM and S2C are authored by the person pointing to the letters and not the person holding the board, neither method can be regarded as a valid form of AAC and their use in clinical practice is strongly discouraged by the Centre for AAC.”

Irish Association of Speech & Language Therapists [PDF] (May 2017)

IASLT Position Statement on the Rapid Prompting Method: "IASLT wish to put on record our position in relation to this method - primarily our concern that there is no evidence to support its use….IASLT's concern is that as a method it is closely related to the technique known as: 'Facilitated Communication' (FC) which has been proven to be ineffective and not evidence based….FC and its variants such as RPM, remain illegitimate and ultimately undermine the voices of individuals with communication impairments."

National Council on Severe Autism (Adopted June 22, 2021)

NCSA Position Statement on Facilitated Communication: “We also urge caution with regard to newer variants of FC such as the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C). Like FC, these methods rely on the intervention of a partner to facilitate the communication, and therefore carry the risk of conscious or unconscious prompting by the intermediary. Although practitioners regularly contend the output is the independent work of the persons being facilitated, we are concerned that to date no reliable research has confirmed the authenticity of the communications and that practitioners have systematically resisted calls for simple, straightforward verification studies.”

Speech-Language & Audiology Canada [PDF] (January 16, 2018)

Official Statement: Use of Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method: "SAC does not support use of facilitated communication and/or rapid prompting method by its members and associates in clinical practice."

Speech Pathology Australia (Developed in 2012; Updated in 2020)

Augmentative and Alternative Communication Clinical Guideline*: “Therefore, because of the lack of evidence of its validity, its focus on prompt-dependency, and its other similarities to FC, Speech Pathology Australia does not support the use of RPM and its use is not recommended. Information obtained using RPM cannot be assumed to be the communication of the person with disability”
*Send an email to office@speechpathologyaustralia.org.au to request a copy.