Usefulness of an Assistive Technology Training Program for Adolscents With Dyslexia

Adolescent Clinical Trial

— FormONC  

Official title:

Usefulness of an Assistive Technology Training Program for Adolescents With Dyslexia: Pilot Study

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05636813
• Other study ID #: 20-160
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: March 8, 2021
• Est. completion date: December 31, 2024

Study information

• Verified date: February 2022
• Source: University Hospital, Caen
• Contact: Hélène Desmaisons, MRS
• Phone: +33231065905
• Email: desmaisons-h[@]chu-caen.fr
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

Specific Written Language Disorders (SWLD) are severe and lasting impairments in the development of written language that affect approximately 10% of the school-age population.Concerned patients don't have any intellectual disability. Speech therapy help them to improve their language skills but also to compensate for their difficulties. School environment is one of the places where these disorders can constitute a real handicap. Given the prevalence of disorders, governments but also supra-governmental authorities have promoted educational integration of the concerned patients around the world. In France, different systems exist to help these patients with SWLD to follow an education that allows them to update their capacities as much as possible. School facilities are proposed such as attribution of Assistive Technology (AT). Nevertheless, these facilities have some limitations. Concerning AT, several studies have shown the benefits for patients with dyslexia such as a better use of them. However, there were some limitations in their use and their usefulness. The lack of use training is one of the barriers cited by patients and caregivers (parents and teachers). Assistive Technology training exists for patients with dyslexia but very few studies have measured their influence on their performance in written language. Moreover, these studies did not take into account the previous level of computer practice nor the natural appropriation of the AT (ie: anyone can appropriate themselves). It is therefore difficult to affirm the specificity of the training's influence. This study aims to assess the usefulness of AT training on the written language performance of adolescents with dyslexia. This work will study teenager's autonomy and how they use these tools.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 12
• Est. completion date: December 31, 2024
• Est. primary completion date: December 31, 2023
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 8 Years to 15 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• adolescents with dyslexia
• normal schooling (not in a specialized establishment)
• with attribution of assistive technology less than 3 months or planned soon or low usage

Exclusion Criteria:

• oral disabilities hindering intelligibility
• physical disabilities (hands) hindering use of AT
• auditive and visual disabilities

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Adolescent
• Dyslexia

Intervention

Other:
• Training
Patients are trained to use AT (2 sessions of 4 hours). Written langage skills, autonomy, the use are evaluated before and after training.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
France	Desmaisons	Caen

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University Hospital, Caen

Country where clinical trial is conducted

France, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Reading skills without assistive technology before training: number of words read	minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a better outcome	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills without assistive technology before training: number of misread	minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a worse outcome	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills without assistive technology before training: time to read	(in seconds, higher times mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills without assistive technology before training: titles choices	(higher scores mean a better outcome, minimum 0 and maximum 6)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills without assistive technology before training: right or wrong	(higher scores mean a better outcome: minimum 0 and maximum 8)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills without assistive technology before training: choice of the good answer	(higher scores mean a better outcome:minimum 0 and maximum 4).	9 weeks
Primary	Reading effectiveness without assistive technology before training	sum (minimum 0 and maximum 172: higher scores mean a better outcome) of number of correct read words (minimum 0 and maximum 152) plus comprehension score (minimum 0 and maximum 18) plus reading score (0: failed, 1: partially succeded, 2 succeded)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills without assistive technology after training: number of words read	(minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills without assistive technology after training: number of misread	(minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills without assistive technology after training: time to read	(in seconds, higher times mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills without assistive technology after training: titles choices	(higher scores mean a better outcome, minimum 0 and maximum 6)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills without assistive technology after training: right or wrong	(higher scores mean a better outcome: minimum 0 and maximum 8)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills without assistive technology after training: choice of the good answer	(higher scores mean a better outcome:minimum 0 and maximum 4).	9 weeks
Primary	Reading effectiveness without assistive technology after training	sum (minimum 0 and maximum 172: higher scores mean a better outcome) of number of correct read words (minimum 0 and maximum 152) plus comprehension score (minimum 0 and maximum 18) plus reading score (0: failed, 1: partially succeded, 2 succeded)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills with assistive technology before training: number of words read	(minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills with assistive technology before training: number of misread	(minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills with assistive technology before training: time to read	(in seconds, higher times mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills with assistive technology before training: titles choices	(higher scores mean a better outcome, minimum 0 and maximum 6)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills with assistive technology before training: right or wrong	(higher scores mean a better outcome: minimum 0 and maximum 8)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills with assistive technology before training: choice of the good answer	(higher scores mean a better outcome:minimum 0 and maximum 4).	9 weeks
Primary	Reading effectiveness with assistive technology before training	sum (minimum 0 and maximum 172: higher scores mean a better outcome) of number of correct read words (minimum 0 and maximum 152) plus comprehension score (minimum 0 and maximum 18) plus reading score (0: failed, 1: partially succeded, 2 succeded)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills with assistive technology after training: number of words read	(minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills with assistive technology after training: number of misread	(minimum 0 and maximum 152, higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading skills with assistive technology after training: time to read	(in seconds, higher times mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills with assistive technology after training: titles choices	(higher scores mean a better outcome, minimum 0 and maximum 6)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills with assistive technology after training: right or wrong	(higher scores mean a better outcome: minimum 0 and maximum 8)	9 weeks
Primary	Reading comprehension skills with assistive technology after training: choice of the good answer	(higher scores mean a better outcome:minimum 0 and maximum 4).	9 weeks
Primary	Reading effectiveness with assistive technology after training	sum (minimum 0 and maximum 172: higher scores mean a better outcome) of number of correct read words (minimum 0 and maximum 152) plus comprehension score (minimum 0 and maximum 18) plus reading score (0: failed, 1: partially succeded, 2 succeded)	9 weeks
Primary	Written skills without assistive technology before training	Number of correct written words (handwriting) in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a better outcome); Number of incorrect written words (handwriting) in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Written skills without assistive technology after training	Number of correct written words (handwriting) in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a better outcome); Number of incorrect written words (handwriting) in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Written skills with assistive technology before training	Number of correct written words in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a better outcome); Number of incorrect written words in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Primary	Written skills with assistive technology after training	Number of correct written words in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a better outcome); Number of incorrect written words in 3 minutes (higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Autonomy before training	Autonomy in the daily life (number of help's need) (higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Autonomy after training	Autonomy in the daily life (number of help's need) (higher scores mean a worse outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Effectiveness of assistive technology utilization before training: Frequency of use	(minutes per week) (higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Effectiveness of assistive technology utilization before training: Number of different utilization locations	(home, school, …) (higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Effectiveness of assistive technology utilization before training: Number of different accomplished tasks	(games, homework, messaging, social networks, …) (higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Effectiveness of assistive technology utilization after training: Frequency of use	(minutes per week) (higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Effectiveness of assistive technology utilization after training: Number of different utilization locations	(home, school, …) (higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks
Secondary	Effectiveness of assistive technology utilization after training: Number of different accomplished tasks	(games, homework, messaging, social networks, …) (higher scores mean a better outcome)	9 weeks