Potential individual variations in the effectiveness of a shared communication method, facilitated communication (FC), were examined among 20 students with autism and related disorders. To minimize the limits or disadvantages of a single method, we used multiple methods, including auditory or visual input, and simple pointing responses to pictures or words, as well as typing. Data were collected after 6 weeks of FC, and follow-up data up to 7 months later. Findings differed across methods, but there was little clear support for the validity of FC in enhancing communication over communication that students produced independently. Significant facilitator influence of responses was found, but was far less extensive than in other studies. However, an 
abdication
pattern of responding was found for some students, in which high performance observed with independent responding was lessened
on trials when FC was introduced. That is, these students may become more passive communicators when FC is used. The complex detected and undetected influences in the process of communication through facilitation are discussed, as well as risk factors in the use of FC.
The conceptualization of this study was a collaborative process in which all three authors participated equally. We are grateful to the students and parents for their participation in this study. Also, we owe a special debt of gratitude to the facilitators for the essential, but often difficult contributions they made to this project. The study could not have been completed without the help of Carol Haddad and Nancy Freeman, who assisted in data collection and analyses. We thank Sharp Canada for the donation of equipment. We appreciate the support of Thistletown Regional Centre, and particularly the technical assistance of Don Smith and Ken Copeman of the Centre's Audio-Visual Services. Within the TRE-ADD Program, we want to thank the Management Team, especially Gail Gonda, Deb Oreskovich, and Julie Kerr for their support, encouragement, and flexibility. The views expressed in this manuscript are solely those of the authors, and not necessarily those of York University, Thistletown Regional Centre, or the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services.