Search results

Learners with autism require specialized education and supports to ensure acquisition and mastery of various communication skills. This is particularly true for individuals whose disability significantly impacts their language development. Without functional communication, these individuals often engage in severe behavior, have reduced self-determination, and experience diminished quality of life. Accordingly, researchers in special education and related fields have sought ways to improve the communication skills of learners with autism who need specialized language and communication interventions. Although the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is well-established in the empirical literature and has helped countless individuals learn to communicate, the method known as facilitated communication (FC; which also is being called “supported typing” and “rapid prompting method”) has become increasingly popular in recent years. Few methods in special education have been as thoroughly discredited as FC and perhaps none are as dangerous. This chapter contrasts the thoroughly debunked FC and its pseudoscientific characteristics with those underpinning PECS. A brief historical account of each method is provided along with key scientific and pseudoscientific features that distinguish science from pseudoscience. Ultimately, our intent is to further clarify how FC is not an augmentative or alternative communication method and why PECS is.

The purpose of this paper is to broaden the discussion on some of the barriers and solutions for co-production in positive behaviour support (PBS) planning as identified in the paper “Including people with intellectual disabilities in the development of their own Positive Behaviour Support Plans”.

Drawing on the literature associated with co-production in PBS planning, this commentary will reflect on the wider systems and culture needed to enable successful implementation of this way of working.

Co-production in PBS planning is recommended as part of best practice guidelines. However, there is limited research in the area of co-production with regards to PBS and use of augmentative and alternative communication methods. Collaboration among speech and language therapy and PBS practitioners is an important factor for co-production to achieve the best outcomes for people with learning disabilities who display behaviours of concern. Along with identifying a range of communication tools/strategies needed for PBS assessment/planning, it also requires a whole systems approach and culture shift to ensure the necessary foundations are in place.

Co-production in PBS planning remains an under practiced way of working. This commentary builds on the barriers and solutions identified for co-production and provides further insight into what might be needed to achieve this in health and social care settings.