An alternating treatment comparison of oral and total communications training programs with echolalic autistic children.

The team worked with three echolalic autistic children.

They used an alternating-treatments design.

Each child got two teaching styles in the same session: oral-only and total communication.

Total communication paired every spoken word with a sign or gesture.

The goal was to see which method built expressive labels faster.

Total communication won every time.

All three kids learned new words faster when signs were added to speech.

The advantage showed up within each child and across all three.

Gentry et al. (1980) ran the same race three years earlier with one mute autistic preschooler.

They got the same result: total communication beat sign-alone and vocal-only drills.

The 1983 study shows the edge holds even for kids who already echo words.

Remington et al. (1983) looks like a clash at first.

They found no speed boost when they added speech to sign training.

The key difference is the children: their mix included mute and imitative kids, not pure echolalia.

Gevarter et al. (2013) later swept dozens of AAC studies into one review.

They label the 1983 paper as part of the evidence that instructional tweaks, not gadget choice, drive progress.

If you work with echolalic learners, stop choosing between speech or sign.

Give both at once.

Pair your vocal model with a clear sign or gesture every trial.

Track the data session-by-session; the boost should show up fast.

This simple add-on costs nothing and has won every head-to-head test since 1980.