The controversial method, known as "facilitated communication," is at the center of Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield's trial on charges of sexually assaulting a severely mentally disabled man
NEWARK -- In a 2011 article, Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield offered a staunch defense of the controversial communication method known as "facilitated communication."
The technique, Stubblefield argued, allows the disabled to communicate by typing on a keyboard with the assistance of a facilitator. To Stubblefield, those who criticized the method were practicing "hate speech."
"The political importance of (facilitated communication) as a communication tool is that it has allowed some people who were considered to be profoundly intellectually impaired--due to their inability to speak and to point accurately without support--to demonstrate their intellectual competence," Stubblefield wrote.
Four years later, Stubblefield is now turning to facilitated communication as her defense to criminal charges of sexually assaulting a severely mentally disabled man. She is accused of abusing the man in her Newark office in 2011.
Her trial - which is scheduled to start today -- hinges on whether the alleged victim, known as D.J., consented to the sexual activity. The state's experts have found D.J. is unable to consent, but Stubblefield has claimed he consented through facilitated communication.
Facing allegations that she knew or should have known D.J. was unable to consent, Stubblefield, 45, of West Orange, is expected to testify that she believed facilitated communication was a valid means of communication. D.J. suffers from cerebral palsy and other ailments.
Rutgers has placed Stubblefield on administrative leave without pay.
RELATED: Jury selection to begin in Rutgers professor's sex assault trial
The case has cast a spotlight on the controversial technique, which has been subject to intense debate since its introduction in the United States more than 20 years ago.
Advocates of facilitated communication claim the method has been proven to help disabled individuals who have a desire to communicate, but need physical support to express themselves.
"We have to make sure we're always utilizing best practices, but this has been very, very, very useful and valid for lots and lots of people," said Christine Ashby, director of the Institute on Communication and Inclusion at Syracuse University, whose activities include facilitated communication training and research. The institute was formerly called the Facilitated Communication Institute.
But critics have said facilitated communication is similar to using an Ouija board, the classic board game supposedly used to connect players to the spirit world.
They maintain that numerous scientific studies have shown facilitated communication to be ineffective and that the facilitators are the ones really communicating by moving the disabled person's hand along the keyboard.
Several scientific organizations, including the American Psychological Association and The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, have issued statements that the technique is invalid.
"There is an extensive body of evidence against the authenticity of facilitated communication," said Jason Travers, an assistant professor in the special education department at Kansas University.
Superior Court Judge Siobhan Teare, pictured in this February 2015 file photo, will be presiding over Rutgers-Newark professor Anna Stubblefield's sexual assault trial in Essex County. (Ed Murray | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com) For Stubblefield's trial, Superior Court Judge Siobhan Teare has prohibited expert testimony on facilitated communication, because she determined it is "not a recognized science." The judge also has warned Stubblefield to not take on an expert's perspective in her testimony about the technique.
After jurors ultimately weigh the evidence in the case, some experts argue the verdict could have a far-reaching impact on public perceptions about facilitated communication.
"I think there is always quite a bit riding on these kind of cases," said Ashby, an Associate Professor in the Teaching and Leadership Department of the School of Education at Syracuse University.
Technique under scrutiny
Facilitated communication was first developed in Melbourne, Australia in 1977 by Rosemary Crossley, then a staff member at an institution for individuals with intellectual and physical disabilities, according to a 2014 article in the journal "Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention." The article was written by critics of the technique.
Crossley proposed that as a facilitator stabilizes a disabled person's hand movements, the individual could type words and sentences on a keyboard, the article states.
After the technique was introduced in the United States in the early 1990s, scientific researchers completed studies that showed the method was ineffective and the facilitators were controlling the users' responses, the article states.
Howard Shane, a speech pathologist at Boston Children's Hospital, said he identified such facilitator control in studies during the 1990s. As part of the so-called "double-blind" investigations, the facilitator and the user were each unaware of the information presented to the other party, Shane said.
When the facilitators and the users received different information, the users provided answers associated with the information given to the facilitators, Shane said.
"It was really pretty clear that the authoring of the messages was coming from the facilitator," said Shane, who is expected to testify at Stubblefield's trial about his evaluation of D.J. He declined to comment on the case.
MORE: Controversial technique at center of professor's sex assault trial
Scott Lilienfeld, a psychology professor at Emory University, said there have never been any well-designed studies that show the technique is valid. Studies cited by advocates of the method have been poorly designed, Lilienfeld said.
In studies claiming the technique works, the facilitator saw the information that the disabled person was questioned about, Lilienfeld said.
"What studies overwhelmingly show is that it only works when the facilitator had seen the stimulus," said Lilienfield, who has written about the studies critical of facilitated communication.
Lilienfield argued that, in most cases, the facilitators are unconsciously moving the disabled person's arm. Known as the "ideomotor effect," the process also is seen in the use of Ouija boards, Lilienfield said.
"It's not a conscience or intentional process," Lilienfeld said. "The facilitator is not realizing they're doing the typing."
Advocates defend method
Despite roughly two decades of intense criticism within the scientific communities, advocates continue to maintain the effectiveness of facilitated communication.
In a 2014 article in the journal "Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities," Donald Cardinal and Mary Falvey, professors at Chapman University and California State University, Los Angeles, respectively, argued that studies have confirmed facilitated communication as a valid communication technique.
"There are now far more studies that support FC than refute it. More convincingly, nearly all of the studies unable to capture the effectiveness of the method or concluding facilitator influence occurred more than 15 years ago," the article states.
Anna Stubblefield, a professor at Rutgers-Newark, pictured above in this 2011 file photo, is charged with repeatedly sexually assaulting a severely mentally disabled man in her Newark office in 2011. (Tom Wright-Piersanti/The Star-Ledger) Ashby said the technique does not work for everyone and there have been instances of facilitators influencing users' responses.
But Ashby claimed she has seen evidence of the method helping people to communicate effectively and argued it's inappropriate to rule out the technique entirely.
The technique has been used for people with cerebral palsy, autism, Down syndrome and other disabilities, Ashby said. The ultimate goal is for users to be able to communicate more independently with the least amount of physical support necessary, she said.
"I work with countless individuals and...this has made a tremendous difference in their lives," Ashby said.
"Just because this method isn't working for someone or because someone isn't using it appropriately doesn't mean this method doesn't work for anyone," Ashby added.
Bill Wichert may be reached at bwichert@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @BillWichertNJ. Find NJ.com on Facebook.