Continuing the conversation about echolalia and gestalt language development: A response to Haydock, Harrison, Baldwin, and Leadbitter.

Although gestalt language development incorporates some neurodiversity-affirmative strategies (e.g. embracing echolalia), it is also associated with numerous ideas, assertions, and clinical strategies that lack theoretical and empirical support. For this reason, we believe it is premature to embrace gestalt language development as a neurodiversity-affirmative practice. Given the potential for miscommunication, we must strive for clarity and precision in our terminology (e.g. making a clear distinction between delayed echolalia and the broader set of ideas that comprise gestalt language development). The field of autism will benefit from in-depth discussions about the relationship between neurodiversity-affirmative practices and evidence-based practices.Lay AbstractIt was recently suggested that a set of ideas known as gestalt language development be embraced as a neurodiversity-affirmative practice. Neurodiversity refers to the idea that people interact with the world in many different ways and that there is not a single right way to do so. Some aspects of gestalt language development, such as embracing autistic communication, are consistent with neurodiversity. However, gestalt language development is also associated with numerous ideas, assertions, and clinical strategies that lack theoretical and empirical support. For this reason, we believe it is premature to embrace gestalt language development as a neurodiversity-affirmative practice. We propose that it is important to make sure we use language that differentiates between delayed echolalia and the broader set of ideas that comprise gestalt language development. We also suggest that it is important to discuss the relationship between neurodiversity-affirmative practices and practices supported by research evidence.