Hearing Loss, Language Impairment
Conditions
Brief summary
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 5- to 9-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.
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 5- to 9- 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.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALFeedback with massed trials
The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For massed trials, exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.
BEHAVIORALFeedback with spaced trials
The participant receives feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For spaced trials, 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.
BEHAVIORALNo feedback with massed trials
The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For massed trials, exposures for one word are provided before moving to the next word in each session.
BEHAVIORALNo feedback with spaced trials
The participant does not receive feedback on their accuracy completing retrieval practice tasks. For spaced trials, 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.
Sponsors
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Intervention model description
Adapted alternating treatments research design with 3 conditions per participant. Four participants are randomly assigned to each contrast (arm).
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
5 Years to 9 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
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
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the comparison phase. |
| Labeling - Acquisition Efficiency | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the comparison phase. |
| Labeling - Retention Effectiveness | Four weeks after the intervention ends | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the maintenance phase. |
| Labeling - Retention Efficiency | Four weeks after the intervention ends | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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). The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the maintenance phase. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the comparison phase. |
| Identifying - Acquisition Efficiency | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the comparison phase. |
| Semantic - Acquisition Effectiveness | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the comparison phase. |
| Semantic - Acquisition Efficiency | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the comparison phase. |
| Identifying - Retention Effectiveness | Four weeks after the intervention ends | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the maintenance phase. |
| Identifying - Retention Efficiency | Four weeks after the intervention ends | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the maintenance phase. |
| Semantic - Retention Effectiveness | Four weeks after the intervention ends | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for at least one active intervention condition versus the control condition within the maintenance phase. |
| Semantic - Retention Efficiency | Four weeks after the intervention ends | Count of participants for whom the intervention is successful based on 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) The count of participants indicates the number of participants who exhibited a functional relation indicating greater performance for the condition hypothesized to be superior (i.e., "feedback" or "spaced") within the maintenance phase. |
Countries
United States
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | — |
|---|---|
| Age, Categorical <=18 years | 3 Participants |
| Age, Categorical >=65 years | 0 Participants |
| Age, Categorical Between 18 and 65 years | 0 Participants |
| Arizona Articulation Phonology Test (Fourth Edition) | 65 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 |
| Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Second Edition) | 73 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 10 |
| Expressive Vocabulary Test (Third Edition) | 88 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2 |
| Leiter International Performance Scale (Third Edition) Nonverbal IQ | 108 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 13 |
| Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Fifth Edition) | 91 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 15 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 7 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 2 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 0 Participants |
| Test of Language Development (Fourth Edition) | 81 Scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5 |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 3 | 0 / 3 | 0 / 3 | 0 / 4 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 3 | 0 / 3 | 0 / 3 | 0 / 4 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 3 | 0 / 3 | 0 / 3 | 0 / 4 |
Outcome results
None listed