Imagine interviewing a nonverbal autistic person who appears to answer questions by pointing to letters on a handheld letterboard. Beside them, another person holds or repositions the board as each word is spelled.
Both Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) involve a nonspeaking autistic person pointing to letters, words or symbols to communicate, with a communication partner holding or positioning a letterboard, stencil or keyboard. In S2C, for example, the person may be taught to point to letters on a board to spell words and sentences. RPM similarly uses a communication partner who holds or moves a letterboard or other target and may provide verbal or physical prompts intended to help the person focus and make selections.
Recent news coverage
These communication methods are receiving renewed scrutiny as they appear more frequently in the news. In June, the National Autism Center and May Institute issued a position statement concluding that S2C, RPM and Facilitated Communication lack established empirical evidence demonstrating that the methods reliably produce independently generated communication.
A 2026 systematic review has also examined whether the words produced through assisted spelling can be shown to originate with the nonspeaking person rather than the communication partner. That scientific debate has unfolded alongside documentaries, podcasts, social media advocacy and news coverage featuring people who use these methods — putting S2C and RPM increasingly on the radar of health and disability reporters.
Advocates and families who use these methods say they can give nonspeaking people a way to express thoughts, preferences and ideas that they otherwise cannot communicate through speech.
Other coverage has focused on the scientific controversy surrounding the methods and their relationship to Facilitated Communication (FC), a discredited technique in which a facilitator physically supports a person’s hand while they type.
The stories can be deeply personal and consequential for autistic people and their families, while the central scientific question—whether the messages are generated independently by the person communicating or influenced by the communication partner—can be hard to assess through a conventional interview.
How to report on assisted communication technology
One of the first questions reporters should ask is how S2C and RPM differ from Facilitated Communication (FC). FC, in which a facilitator physically supports a person’s hand or arm while they type, has been extensively studied and widely discredited after research showed that facilitators — not the disabled people — were often unknowingly authoring the messages.
Professional organizations, including the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), note that S2C and RPM share important characteristics with FC because they rely on facilitator involvement and lack sufficient scientific evidence demonstrating that are generated independently from the communicator.
Read the ASHA’s Position Statement here.
Personal stories can be compelling but are not substitutes for controlled research. Ask whether studies have independently verified that the communicator — not the facilitator — is generating the message. Seek out systematic reviews and position statements from professional organizations, including ASHA and the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, which has also cautioned against facilitator-dependent communication methods
Interviewing sources also requires careful attention. If an individual communicates through S2C or RPM, reporters should describe the communication method transparently and note the facilitator’s role. When possible, ask whether the person has demonstrated independent communication using other methods. Consider whether interviews can include opportunities for independently generated responses.
Journalists should also remember that S2C and RPM are not synonymous with augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Many evidence-based AAC systems — including speech-generating devices, eye-gaze technology, and independently accessed keyboards — allow people to communicate without facilitator influence. Organizations such as CommunicationFIRST, a disability rights organization led by people with communication disabilities, offer resources on communication access and independent AAC.
Finally, avoid framing the debate as a simple conflict between parents and clinicians. Stories are stronger when they include perspectives from speech-language pathologists, autism researchers, disability scholars, AAC experts, and nonspeaking autistic adults who communicate independently. Doing so helps readers understand not only the hopes surrounding these methods but also the scientific standards used to evaluate communication interventions.
Additional resources
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
- Suggested experts
- Howard Shane, Ph.D., director, Center for Communication Enhancement at Boston Children’s Hospital
- Brownyn Hemsley, University of Newcastle, Australia
- Ralf Schlosser, Ph.D., research design consultant in the Augmentative Communication Program and the Autism Language Program, Boston Children’s Hospital
