Retrieval Practice for Word Learning for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children
- Conditions
- Hearing LossLanguage Impairment
- Interventions
- Behavioral: Feedback with massed trialsBehavioral: Feedback with spaced trialsBehavioral: No feedback with spaced trialsBehavioral: No feedback with massed trialsBehavioral: No teaching control
- Registration Number
- NCT05512000
- Lead Sponsor
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center
- 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 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.
- 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.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 16
- At least minimal prelingual hearing loss
- Standard scores of at least 70 for receptive and expressive vocabulary skills
- English is only spoken language
- Below average nonverbal cognition
- Uncorrected vision impairment
- Evidence of severe motor impairment
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Contrast A Feedback with massed trials Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials Contrast B No feedback with spaced trials Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Contrast A No feedback with massed trials Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials Contrast A No teaching control Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials Contrast B No teaching control Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Contrast D No teaching control Spaced vs massed trials with feedback Contrast C No feedback with massed trials Spaced vs massed trials without feedback Contrast B Feedback with spaced trials Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Contrast C No teaching control Spaced vs massed trials without feedback Contrast C No feedback with spaced trials Spaced vs massed trials without feedback Contrast D Feedback with spaced trials Spaced vs massed trials with feedback Contrast D Feedback with massed trials Spaced vs massed trials with feedback
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Labeling - acquisition 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)
Labeling - retention 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)
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Semantic - acquisition 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)
Identifying - acquisition 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)
Identifying - retention 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)
Semantic - retention 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)
Trial Locations
- Locations (1)
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
🇺🇸Nashville, Tennessee, United States