What the peer-reviewed research actually says.
Most search results for facilitated communication frame the practice through a 1990s controversy. Here is the contemporary evidence — translated into plain English, with the citations intact.
Last reviewed: · Reviewed by: FacilitatedCommunication.com editorial team
This is a research translation hub, not an advocacy campaign. The pages below summarize what current peer-reviewed work shows about authorship, motor support, fading, and outcomes — and where the open questions still sit.
The S2C evidence base
What the published Spelling to Communicate research actually tested, what it found, and what it leaves open.
Read →The neuromotor framework
Apraxia, sensory regulation, and motor learning — the science underneath every supported, fading-based method.
Read →Responses to common criticisms
Authorship, message-passing, 'pseudoscience,' false allegations, and 'just FC repackaged' — calmly answered.
Read →Evidence base for clinicians
How motor-based and text-based methods sit against ASHA's three-pillar evidence-based practice framework.
Read →Is facilitated communication real?
Short, evidence-based answer to the most common search query.
Read →Does facilitated communication work?
What 'work' means in the research literature, and what outcomes have actually been measured.
Read →