There are several interventions that are designed to support children with ASD however not all of them are backed up by enough standardization and validation. There are also some interventions that have a lack of an appropriate number of studies to support their effectiveness or conflicting results across various study designs and findings.

Facilitated communication (FC) has been interpreted as an ideomotor phenomenon. In FC one person physically supports another person’s hand. This physical connection is expected to unconsciously affect the content of the writing. Despite the strong experimental evidence that is against the authenticity of FC output, there are still several studies that claim to support its validity based on idiosyncrasies found in the texts produced.

A review of these studies demonstrated that, because of the logical circularity of the reasoning proposed in the studies. There was still no decisive evidence that validated FC was presented. In addition, the idiosyncrasies found were better explained as by-products of the unusual writing process itself.

The study concluded through its findings that the studies did not fulfill the quality standards proposed by the FC field itself.

Reference: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1088357616646075