Retrieval Practice for Word Learning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

April 23, 2024 updated by: Jena McDaniel, Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Increasing Word Learning Efficiency in Children Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing Through Retrieval Practice

This study is designed to advance the promising yet underutilized research on retrieval practice by evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of two key retrieval practice features (feedback and spacing). The study uses four single case adapted alternating treatments studies, each with four 5- to 8-year-old children who are deaf and hard of hearing to evaluate the effects of feedback and spacing on the efficiency of word learning and retention.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The proposed research addresses a long-standing and important challenge of improving language skills of children who are deaf and hard of hearing, a historically under researched group. The study aims to leverage retrieval practice - an empirically validated intervention approach - for improving how efficiently children who are deaf and hard of hearing learn and retain new words. To advance the promising yet underutilized research on retrieval practice, the study completes the next logical step of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of two key retrieval practice features: feedback and spacing. Feedback is predicted to result in more efficient learning because it focuses attention on unmastered material, prevents the illusion of success, and reduces repeated errors. Spacing trials are predicted to result in more efficient learning than massed trials because they require more effort with fewer cues provided. The study will accomplish these aims through four single case adapted alternating treatments design studies with sixteen 5- to 8- year-old children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Study innovations include the critical evaluation of retention and use of a multi-session intervention context. The knowledge gained will guide language intervention for children who are deaf and hard of hearing.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

16

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Tennessee
      • Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37232
        • Recruiting
        • Vanderbilt University Medical Center
        • Contact:
          • Jena McDaniel, PhD

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

5 years to 8 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • At least minimal prelingual hearing loss
  • Standard scores of at least 70 for receptive and expressive vocabulary skills
  • English is only spoken language

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Below average nonverbal cognition
  • Uncorrected vision impairment
  • Evidence of severe motor impairment

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Contrast A
Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials
Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials
The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.
Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials
The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.
Behavioral: No teaching control
The words in this set are not taught, only assessed.
Experimental: Contrast B
Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials
Behavioral: No teaching control
The words in this set are not taught, only assessed.
Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials
The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for each word are interspersed with one another (e.g., an exposure for word 1, then one for word 3, then one for word 2, etc.) in each session.
Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials
The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for each word are interspersed with one another (e.g., an exposure for word 1, then one for word 3, then one for word 2, etc.) in each session.
Experimental: Contrast C
Spaced vs massed trials without feedback
Behavioral: No feedback with massed trials
The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.
Behavioral: No teaching control
The words in this set are not taught, only assessed.
Behavioral: No feedback with spaced trials
The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for each word are interspersed with one another (e.g., an exposure for word 1, then one for word 3, then one for word 2, etc.) in each session.
Experimental: Contrast D
Spaced vs massed trials with feedback
Behavioral: Feedback with massed trials
The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.
Behavioral: No teaching control
The words in this set are not taught, only assessed.
Behavioral: Feedback with spaced trials
The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. Exposures for each word are interspersed with one another (e.g., an exposure for word 1, then one for word 3, then one for word 2, etc.) in each session.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Labeling - acquisition
Time Frame: End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
Percent accuracy labeling target words expressively (number of target words correctly labeled when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set [i.e., 4] times 100)
End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
Labeling - retention
Time Frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Percent accuracy labeling target words expressively (number of target words correctly labeled when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set [i.e., 4] times 100)
Four weeks after the intervention ends

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Identifying - acquisition
Time Frame: End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
Percent accuracy identifying target words receptively (number of objects correctly identified when target word is named divided by the number of words in the set [i.e., 4] times 100)
End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
Semantic - acquisition
Time Frame: End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
Percent accuracy labeling associated semantic information (i.e., location; number of target objects' locations correctly named when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set [i.e., 4] times 100)
End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months).
Identifying - retention
Time Frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Percent accuracy identifying target words receptively (number of objects correctly identified when target word is named divided by the number of words in the set [i.e., 4] times 100)
Four weeks after the intervention ends
Semantic - retention
Time Frame: Four weeks after the intervention ends
Percent accuracy labeling associated semantic information (i.e., location; number of target objects' locations correctly named when shown the object divided by the number of words in the set [i.e., 4] times 100)
Four weeks after the intervention ends

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

February 5, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2024

Study Completion (Estimated)

December 1, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 11, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 19, 2022

First Posted (Actual)

August 23, 2022

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 24, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 23, 2024

Last Verified

April 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 221204

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Graphs with individual data points will be reported in manuscripts that share the primary study findings. Sharing of such graphical data will permit inclusion of the project's results in future meta-analyses.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Data will become available when manuscripts are published.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Data will become available through the published manuscript(s).

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP
  • ICF

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Hearing Loss

Clinical Trials on Feedback with massed trials

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Malta

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe