Hearing Loss, Sensorineural
Conditions
Brief summary
This study aims to determine the effectiveness of computer games to improve language and literacy outcomes for children who have hearing loss. Children will be assigned to one of four conditions: phonological awareness training, working memory training, phonological awareness + working memory training, or active control.
Detailed description
Both phonological awareness and working memory are known to be important for children's language and literacy learning. Though there are computer games that claim to improve phonological awareness and working memory, it is unknown if these games will improve language and literacy skills for children who have hearing loss. The investigators will first determine if the games are effective for improving language and phonological awareness in children with hearing loss relative to an active control condition. Secondly, the investigators will determine if gains in phonological awareness and working memory translate into gains in language and literacy skills relative to active control.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALPhonological Awareness
Earobics training
BEHAVIORALWorking Memory
Cogmed training
BEHAVIORALPhonological Awareness + Working Memory
Earobics + Cogmed training
BEHAVIORALActive Control
Spashmath
Sponsors
Northwestern University
Florida State University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
FACTORIAL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Assessors are blind to treatment condition. Intervention providers are blind to assessment outcomes.
Intervention model description
The efficacy of phonological awareness (Earobics) and working memory (Cogmed) training alone and in combination are compared to an active control (Splashmath).
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to 7 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Prelingual hearing loss * Use of amplification device (hearing aid and/or cochlear implant) for at least one year * Able to visit the clinic 3x/week for 12 weeks
Exclusion criteria
* No developmental delays (Down's syndrome, Autism spectrum disorder)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Phonological Awareness Test scores | Baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks post-baseline), 6 months post-baseline | Change in a standardized test of phonological awareness. Scores are from 0-100 with higher scores indicating better performance. |
| Change inComprehensive Test of Phonological Awareness | Baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks post-baseline), 6 months post-baseline | Change in a standardized test of phonological awareness. Scores are from 0-100 with higher scores indicating better performance. |
| Change in Children's Test of Nonword Repetition | Baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks post-baseline), 6 months post-baseline | Change in a standardized test of verbal working memory |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Oral Written Language Scales | Baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks post-baseline), 6 months post-baseline | Change in a standardized test of language and literacy skills. Measures performance on expressive and receptive language, and reading and writing abilities. Scores are age-adjusted. |
| Change in Receptive/Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test | Baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks post-baseline), 6 months post-baseline | Change in a standardized test of vocabulary knowledge. Scores are from 0-100 with higher scores indicating better performance. |
| Change in Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test | Baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks post-baseline), 6 months post-baseline | Change in a standardized test of early literacy skills. Scores are from 0-100 with higher scores indicating better performance. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed