National Autism Center Releases Position Statement on Spelling to Communicate, Rapid Prompting Method, and Facilitated Communication

06/23/26

Randolph, Mass. — Evidence-based communication intervention is a fundamental right for autistic individuals (NJC, 2024). In recent years, several long-discredited facilitated communication approaches have reemerged under new names, offering families the promise that a non-speaking individual may quickly gain the ability to communicate complex thoughts and ideas through access to a letterboard or other communication system supported by a facilitator. 

Methods such as Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) are promoted as means of unlocking hidden intelligence and enabling communication for the first time. However, these approaches lack scientific validation (Tostanoski et al., 2014) and may interfere with the development of authentic, independent communication (Travers, 2017). S2C and RPM represent contemporary iterations of Facilitated Communication (FC), a discredited practice that has been repeatedly shown to risk facilitator influence over the messages produced and to undermine the autonomy of individuals presumed to be communicating (Hemsley et al., 2018). 

Following a review of the peer-reviewed literature, and consistent with position statements issued by organizations including the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), the Association for Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT), and the National Council on Severe Autism (NCSA), May Institute and the National Autism Center affirm that Spelling to Communicate, Rapid Prompting Method, and other forms of Facilitated Communication have no established empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness as communication interventions. 

A central concern regarding these methods is the absence of evidence demonstrating independent authorship. To date, research has failed to establish that messages generated through facilitated typing originate from the non-speaking individual rather than from the facilitator (Hemsley et al., 2018; Schlosser et al., 2014). This concern is especially significant because authorship could be objectively evaluated through controlled, blinded testing procedures. Such procedures allow researchers to determine whether an individual can communicate information that is unknown to facilitators and observers. 

Despite longstanding calls from researchers and professional organizations, proponents of Facilitated Communication and related approaches have not produced evidence from blinded authorship studies demonstrating independent communication. As a result, claims regarding the effectiveness of these methods remain unsupported by scientific evidence. 

The promotion of unvalidated communication interventions to vulnerable populations is particularly concerning. Families seeking meaningful communication opportunities for their children often invest significant time, effort, and financial resources in approaches that have not been demonstrated to be effective. More importantly, reliance on unsupported interventions may delay access to evidence-based services designed to promote genuine communicative independence (Travers, 2017). 

Another fundamental limitation of facilitated communication approaches is their reliance on the continued presence of a facilitator. Communication interventions should be designed to increase an individual's independence over time. Approaches that require ongoing physical, gestural, or positional support without a systematic plan for fading those supports do not align with this objective. Independent communication requires that the individual—not another person—controls message selection and production. 

As new variants of Facilitated Communication continue to emerge under different names, May Institute and the National Autism Center encourages families and professionals to carefully evaluate claims made about communication interventions. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and interventions that appear to offer rapid, dramatic results should be examined critically. 

When evaluating communication interventions, families should consider the following questions: 

Does the intervention promote independent communication? 

The goal of communication instruction should be independent communication whenever possible. Many autistic individuals successfully use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems, including sign language, picture-based systems, speech-generating devices, text-based communication, and other supports. While these approaches often require instruction, prompting, and ongoing support, they are designed to increase independent control over communication and include strategies for systematically fading prompts whenever appropriate (Ganz et al., 2023). 

Is the individual taught to independently access and operate the communication system? 

Effective communication interventions should include instruction in independently holding, accessing, navigating, and operating the communication system being used (Murphy et al., 1996; Sigafoos et al., 2004). Individuals should learn to interact directly with their communication tools rather than relying on another person to control access to those tools. 

Does the supporting research include blinded testing? 

When reviewing research on communication interventions, families should look for studies that evaluate whether individuals can communicate information unknown to facilitators, therapists, teachers, or researchers. These blinded procedures help verify that communication originates from the individual rather than from external influence (Hemsley et al., 2018). At present, published research supporting Spelling to Communicate has not demonstrated independent authorship through blinded testing procedures. 

Have qualified communication professionals been consulted? 

Speech-language pathologists play a critical role in evaluating communication strengths, identifying appropriate communication systems, and developing individualized intervention plans. They can assess a person's learning history, preferences, motor abilities, and communication needs while implementing evidence-based strategies designed to promote independent communication. 

Although Spelling to Communicate, Rapid Prompting Method, and other forms of Facilitated Communication lack scientific support, numerous evidence-based communication interventions are available. Families are encouraged to pursue interventions supported by research and to work closely with qualified professionals when developing communication goals for non-speaking autistic individuals. 

Examples of evidence-based communication interventions include: 

• Functional Communication Training (FCT) (Steinbrenner et al., 2020; Walker et al., 2018) 

• Pivotal Response Treatment (PRT) (Hardan et al., 2015; National Autism Center, 2015; Steinbrenner, et al., 2020) 

• Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) (Lerna et al., 2014; Tincani & Davis, 2011, Steinbrenner, et al., 2020) 

• Mand Training (Drasgow et al., 2016; Shillingsburg et al., 2020; Wallace, 2007) 

• Sign Language Instruction (Couper et al., 2014; Sigafoos, Lancioni, O’Reilly, 2025) 

• Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) (Holyfield, et al., 2017; Steinbrenner, et al., 2020) 

• Joint Attention, Symbolic Play, Engagement, and Regulation (JASPER) (Chang et al., 2016; National Autism Center, 2015; Steinbrenner, et al., 2020) 

• Prompting and Systematic Prompt Fading Procedures (National Autism Center, 2015; Steinbrenner, et al., 2020) 

For additional information on evidence-based communication interventions for non-speaking autistic individuals, families may consult resources such as Profound Autism: A Parent's Guide and educational materials available through the National Autism Center. 

The National Autism Center remains committed to promoting evidence-based practices that support meaningful, authentic, and independent communication for all individuals with autism. 

References: 

Chang, Y. C., Shire, S. Y., Shih, W., Gelfand, C., & Kasari, C. (2016). Preschool deployment of evidence-based social communication intervention: JASPER in the classroom. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 46(6), 2211-2223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2752-2  

Couper, L., van der Meer, L., Schäfer, M. C., McKenzie, E., McLay, L., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E.; Marschik, P. B., Sigafoos, J. & Sutherland, D. (2014). Comparing acquisition of and preference for manual signs, picture exchange, and speech-generating devices in nine children with autism spectrum disorder. Developmental neurorehabilitation, 17(2), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2013.870244 

Drasgow, E., Martin, C. A., Chezan, L. C., Wolfe, K., & Halle, J. W. (2016). Mand training: An examination of response-class structure in three children with autism and severe language delays. Behavior Modification, 40(3), 347-376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515613582 

Ganz, J. B., Pustejovsky, J. E., Reichle, J., Vannest, K. J., Foster, M., Haas, A. N., Pierson, L. M., Wattanawongwan, S., Bernal, A., Chen, M., Skov, R., & Smith, S. D. (2023). Considering instructional contexts in AAC interventions for people with ASD and/or IDD experiencing complex communicative needs: A single-case design meta-analysis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10(4), 615-629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-022-00314-w  

Hardan, A. Y., Gengoux, G. W., Berquist, K. L., Libove, R. A., Ardel, C. M., Phillips, J., Frazier, T. W., & Minjarez, M. B. (2015). A randomized controlled trial of Pivotal Response Treatment Group for parents of children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56(8), 884-892. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12354 

Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H. C., Lang, R., Paul, D., Banajee, M., & Ireland, M. (2018). Systematic review of facilitated communication 2014–2018 finds no new evidence that messages delivered using facilitated communication are authored by the person with disability. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518821570  

Holyfield, C., Drager, K. D., Kremkow, J. M., & Light, J. (2017). Systematic review of AAC intervention research for adolescents and adults with autism spectrum disorder. Augmentative and alternative communication, 33(4), 201-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2017.1370495 

Lerna, A., Esposito, D., Conson, M., & Massagli, A. (2014). Long‐term effects of PECS on social–communicative skills of children with autism spectrum disorders: a follow‐up study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(4), 478-485. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12079 

Murphy J, Markova I, Collins S & Moodie E (1996) AAC systems: Obstacles to effective use. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31 (1), pp. 31-44. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682829609033150  

National Autism Center. (2015). Findings and conclusions: National standards project, phase 2. https://www.nationalautismcenter.org/national-standards-project/results-reports/  

National Joint Committee for the Communication Needs of Persons with Severe Disabilities. (2024). Communication Bill of Rights (3rd ed.). https://www.asha.org/NJC/Communication-Bill-of-Rights/  

Schlosser, R. W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, P., & von Tetzchner, S. (2014). Facilitated communication and authorship: a systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(4), 359–368.  10.3109/07434618.2014.971490 

Shillingsburg, M. A., Frampton, S. E., Schenk, Y. A., Bartlett, B. L., Thompson, T. M., & Hansen, B. (2020). Evaluation of a treatment package to increase mean length of utterances for children with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(3), 659-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00417-y  

Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G.E., O’Reilly, M.F. (2025). Teaching Manual Signs. In: Communication Strategies for People with Severe Disabilities. Autism and Child Psychopathology Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-83807-1_5  

Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Seely-York, S., & Edrisinha, C. (2004). Teaching students with developmental disabilities to locate their AAC device. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25(4), 371-383. 10.1016/j.ridd.2003.07.002   

Steinbrenner, J. R., Hume, K., Odom, S. L., Morin, K. L., Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B., Szendrey, S., McIntyre, N. S., Yücesoy-Özkan, S., & Savage, M. N. (2020). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with Autism. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, National Clearinghouse on Autism Evidence and Practice Review Team. 

Tincani, M., & Devis, K. (2011). Quantitative synthesis and component analysis of single-participant studies on the picture exchange communication system. Remedial and Special Education, 32(6), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362494.  

Tostanoski, A., Lang, R., Raulston, T., Carnett, A., & Davis, T. (2014). Voices from the past: Comparing the rapid prompting method and facilitated communication. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 17(4), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2012.749952 

Travers, J. C. (2017). Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven practices in special education. Intervention in school and clinic, 52(4), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216659466 

Walker, V. L., Lyon, K. J., Loman, S. L., & Sennott, S. (2018). A systematic review of Functional Communication Training (FCT) interventions involving augmentative and alternative communication in school settings. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 34(2), 118-129. DOI: 10.1080/07434618.2018.1461240 

Wallace, M. D. (2007). A comprehensive analysis of mand training. The Journal of Speech and Language Pathology – Applied Behavior Analysis, 2(3), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100225