START Project

The START Project supports communication access, self-determination, and meaningful participation for all students, including those who are non-speaking or minimally speaking. Every individual has the right to effective communication supports that promote autonomy, dignity, and authentic self-expression. 

Communication interventions should be individualized, evidence-based, and designed to support autonomous communication. A substantial body of research supports the use of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), including speech-generating devices, communication applications, picture-based systems, and other individualized communication methods to support individuals who cannot rely on speech alone. Individuals can communicate independently and exercise autonomy through AAC, spelling, typing, and other communication methods. The important distinction is that the individual generates their own messages without another person directing or influencing the content. 

Spelling to Communicate (S2C), Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), Facilitated Communication (FC), and similar approaches, such as Spellers, have been promoted as methods to support communication for individuals who are non-speaking or minimally speaking. Research has raised significant concerns about message authorship and facilitator influence in these approaches, and there is insufficient scientific evidence demonstrating that messages produced using these methods originate independently from the individual. Numerous professional organizations have recommended against their use or raised concerns about the lack of supporting evidence. 

Position statements from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) advise against the use of RPM, S2C, and Facilitated Communication due to a lack of scientific evidence supporting their effectiveness, concerns regarding authorship of messages, and the risk of creating dependence on another person for communication. ASHA further notes that these methods may interfere with the development of autonomous communication.

Similarly, the Association for Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT) emphasizes the importance of scientific evidence when evaluating communication interventions, including evidence that messages originate with the individual. ASAT reports that available research has not established independent communication through Spelling to Communicate (S2C) or demonstrated the effectiveness of Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), while Facilitated Communication (FC) has repeatedly failed scientific tests of independent message authorship.

START recognizes that many families, educators, and practitioners are drawn to these approaches because of a sincere desire to provide individuals with greater opportunities to communicate. We also recognize that some individuals who have participated in these methods report meaningful experiences. Conversations with families and individuals considering or using these approaches should be respectful, seek to understand their perspectives and experiences, and focus on shared goals for communication. At the same time, educational and clinical decisions should be guided by scientific evidence and by methods that can reliably demonstrate that communication originates from the individual rather than from another person.

Based on the available research and professional position statements, START recommends evidence-based communication interventions and supports, including Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC). START does not recommend Spelling to Communicate (S2C), Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), Facilitated Communication (FC), or related approaches because there is insufficient scientific evidence demonstrating independent message authorship through these methods. 

START encourages schools and teams to prioritize communication supports that promote independent communication and respect individual autonomy and dignity. We remain committed to supporting schools and families in identifying communication approaches that are effective and maintain high standards for evidence and communication validity. 

Statements from Professional Organizations 

• American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD): Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA): Rapid Prompting Method or Spelling to Communicate
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA): Facilitated Communication
• Association for Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT): Spelling to Communicate: Is There Science Behind That?
• Association for Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT): Facilitated Communication: Is There Science Behind That?
• National Autism Center: Position Statement on Spelling to Communicate, Rapid Prompting Method, and Facilitated Communication
• National Council on Severe Autism (NCSA): Position Statement on Facilitated Communication

Sample Peer-Reviewed Articles

• Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and Rapid Prompting Method (RPM)
  • Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H., Bryant, L., Beals, K., Todd, J., Lang, R., Skinner, S., & Hemsley, B. (2026). Systematic review of authorship in rapid prompting method, spelling to communicate, and variants: Outcomes, significance and clinical implications. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-026-00569-7 
• Facilitated Communication (FC)
  • Hemsley, B., Bryant, L., Schlosser, R. W., Shane, H., 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, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941518821570