A Review of SAFMEDS: Evidence for Procedures, Outcomes and Directions for Future Research

Quigley and colleagues read every SAFMEDS paper they could find. They looked at how the flashcard drills were run, what was measured, and how strong the proof was. The team wrote a plain-language map of the method instead of running new kids through cards.

The review shows SAFMEDS is still an experiment, not a sure thing. Studies use different timing rules, card sets, and scoring, so results cannot be stacked side-by-side. No clear edge over regular flashcards or worksheets has been shown yet.

Mostert (2001) did the same style of review for Facilitated Communication and also found no believable benefit. Both papers warn BCBAs to wait for stronger data before adopting a tool.

Urrea et al. (2024) looked at tech vocabulary games for kids with autism. Half of their studies failed or showed mixed results, matching the shaky picture Quigley reports for SAFMEDS.

Fahmie et al. (2018) tell the opposite story: Preschool Life Skills keeps replicating with clear gains. The contrast highlights that SAFMEDS has not yet earned the same "ready-to-use" status.

If you run fluency programs, treat SAFMEDS like a pilot tool. Track each learner’s data closely and keep another evidence-based method in the mix. Tell teachers and parents the technique is promising but not proven, and stay alert for new systematic reviews that could flip the recommendation.