Why We Need to Study Assisted Methods to Teach Typing to Nonspeaking Autistic People.
Stop ignoring assisted typing—start testing it with safeguards.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Van Gaasbeek et al. (2026) wrote a position paper. They asked researchers to stop ignoring assisted typing for nonspeaking autistic people.
The authors say past fears about facilitator influence should not block new studies. They want clear, systematic research rules.
What they found
The paper does not give new data. It argues that science has no safe, tested way to teach typing to clients who cannot speak.
Until we study it, we cannot know if the method helps or hurts.
How this fits with other research
Stewart et al. (2018) reviewed 48 studies on aided AAC modeling. They found that showing kids how to use devices almost always boosts their expressive output. K et al. extend this idea by asking for the same careful tests with typing.
Dudley et al. (2019) showed that automated speech counters (LENA) miss most vocalizations in autistic teens. Their warning matches K et al.: if we want true client words, we must use human-checked measures, not blind trust in tech or facilitators.
Kaufman et al. (2010) explained how to include nonspeaking adults in research: secure guardian consent and keep tasks non-invasive. K et al. build on this by saying those same safeguards should guide new typing studies.
Why it matters
You may have clients who type with a hand supporter. Right now you have no evidence-based protocol to teach or assess that skill. This paper gives you green light to pilot small, well-controlled studies: film sessions, fade support, measure independent keystrokes, and publish what happens. Your data could turn a controversial practice into an evidence-based option.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Film today’s typing session, then count words produced before, during, and after facilitator touch.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
At least one third of autistic people have limited or no speech. Most nonspeaking autistic people are never provided alternatives that would enable the full range of expression that speech allows, significantly limiting their access to educational, social, and employment opportunities. In this commentary, we argue that assisted methods to teach nonspeaking autistic people to type-long dismissed because the assistant could influence the text they produce during training-warrant fresh study. Although these teaching methods developed in practice rather than research, the practice (including the range of support the assistant provides in the motor, sensory, and attentional domains) is aligned with contemporary research about nonspeaking autistic people's strengths and challenges. We suggest that past research showing that influence can occur during training has been over-interpreted to mean that influence always occurs and that nonspeaking autistic people instructed using assisted methods never learn to type independently. In fact, other research shows that influence does not always occur, and there are independent typers who attribute their skill to the range of assistance they received during training. We believe it is time to revisit assisted methods to teach typing in order to understand their potential, as well as their limits, including how successful learners became independent and for whom these methods would be a good match. These efforts have the potential to result in greater access to effective communication and better quality of life for more nonspeaking autistic people.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2026 · doi:10.1002/aur.70176