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

Hearing Loss Clinical Trial

Official title:

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

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Recruiting

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT05512000
• Other study ID #: 221204
• Status: Recruiting
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: February 5, 2023
• Est. completion date: December 2024

Study information

• Verified date: April 2024
• Source: Vanderbilt University Medical Center
• Contact: Jena C McDaniel, PhD
• Phone: 615-936-5114
• Email: jena.mcdaniel[@]vumc.org
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial 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.

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 information / eligibility

• Status: Recruiting
• Enrollment: 16
• Est. completion date: December 2024
• Est. primary completion date: December 2024
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 5 Years to 8 Years

Eligibility

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

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Deafness
• Hearing Loss
• Language Disorders
• Language Impairment

Intervention

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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• No teaching control
The words in this set are not taught, only assessed.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Vanderbilt University Medical Center	Nashville	Tennessee

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (37)

Antia SD, Lederberg AR, Easterbrooks S, Schick B, Branum-Martin L, Connor CM, Webb MY. Language and Reading Progress of Young Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2020 May 30;25(3):334-350. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enz050. — View Citation

Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (2011). Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society, 2, 59-68.

Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the. Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing, 185.

Bobzien, J. L., Richels, C., Schwartz, K., Raver, S. A., Hester, P., & Morin, L. (2015). Using repeated reading and explicit instruction to teach vocabulary to preschoolers with hearing loss. Infants & Young Children, 28(3), 262-280.

Boons T, De Raeve L, Langereis M, Peeraer L, Wouters J, van Wieringen A. Expressive vocabulary, morphology, syntax and narrative skills in profoundly deaf children after early cochlear implantation. Res Dev Disabil. 2013 Jun;34(6):2008-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.003. Epub 2013 Apr 11. — View Citation

Brennan-Jones CG, White J, Rush RW, Law J. Auditory-verbal therapy for promoting spoken language development in children with permanent hearing impairments. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 12;2014(3):CD010100. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010100.pub2. — View Citation

Carpenter SK. Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: the benefits of elaborative retrieval. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Nov;35(6):1563-9. doi: 10.1037/a0017021. — View Citation

Carpenter, S. K., & Yeung, K. L. (2017). The role of mediator strength in learning from retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 128-141.

Coyne JH, Borg JM, DeLuca J, Glass L, Sumowski JF. Retrieval practice as an effective memory strategy in children and adolescents with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Apr;96(4):742-5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.09.022. Epub 2014 Oct 13. — View Citation

Fritz CO, Morris PE, Nolan D, Singleton J. Expanding retrieval practice: an effective aid to preschool children's learning. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jul;60(7):991-1004. doi: 10.1080/17470210600823595. — View Citation

Geers AE, Mitchell CM, Warner-Czyz A, Wang NY, Eisenberg LS; CDaCI Investigative Team. Early Sign Language Exposure and Cochlear Implantation Benefits. Pediatrics. 2017 Jul;140(1):e20163489. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3489. Epub 2017 Jun 12. — View Citation

Geers AE, Sedey AL. Language and verbal reasoning skills in adolescents with 10 or more years of cochlear implant experience. Ear Hear. 2011 Feb;32(1 Suppl):39S-48S. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181fa41dc. — View Citation

Goossens, N. A., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P., & Tabbers, H. K. (2014). The effect of retrieval practice in primary school vocabulary learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 135-142.

Haebig E, Leonard LB, Deevy P, Karpicke J, Christ SL, Usler E, Kueser JB, Souto S, Krok W, Weber C. Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Development Language Disorder II: A Comparison of Retrieval Schedules. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Apr 15;62(4):944-964. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0071. — View Citation

Jones, A. C., Wardlow, L., Pan, S. C., Zepeda, C., Heyman, G. D., Dunlosky, J., & Rickard, T. C. (2016). Beyond the rainbow: Retrieval practice leads to better spelling than does rainbow writing. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 385-400.

Kaipa R, Danser ML. Efficacy of auditory-verbal therapy in children with hearing impairment: A systematic review from 1993 to 2015. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 Jul;86:124-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.04.033. Epub 2016 May 3. — View Citation

Karpicke JD, Blunt JR, Smith MA. Retrieval-Based Learning: Positive Effects of Retrieval Practice in Elementary School Children. Front Psychol. 2016 Mar 11;7:350. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00350. eCollection 2016. — View Citation

Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., Smith, M. A., & Karpicke, S. S. (2014). Retrieval-based learning: The need for guided retrieval in elementary school children. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(3), 198-206.

Knouse, L. E., Rawson, K. A., Vaughn, K. E., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). Does Testing Improve Learning for college students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Clinical Psychological Science, 4(1), 136-143.

Kyle FE, Harris M. Longitudinal patterns of emerging literacy in beginning deaf and hearing readers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2011 Summer;16(3):289-304. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq069. Epub 2011 Feb 9. — View Citation

Lehman M, Smith MA, Karpicke JD. Toward an episodic context account of retrieval-based learning: dissociating retrieval practice and elaboration. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 Nov;40(6):1787-94. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000012. Epub 2014 May 5. — View Citation

Leonard LB, Deevy P, Karpicke JD, Christ S, Weber C, Kueser JB, Haebig E. Adjective Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder: A Retrieval-Based Approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Dec 5;62(12):4433-4449. doi: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-19-0221. Print 2019 Dec 18. — View Citation

Leonard LB, Karpicke J, Deevy P, Weber C, Christ S, Haebig E, Souto S, Kueser JB, Krok W. Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder I: The Benefits of Repeated Retrieval. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Apr 15;62(4):932-943. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0070. — View Citation

Lipowski SL, Pyc MA, Dunlosky J, Rawson KA. Establishing and explaining the testing effect in free recall for young children. Dev Psychol. 2014 Apr;50(4):994-1000. doi: 10.1037/a0035202. Epub 2013 Dec 2. — View Citation

Luckner JL, Cooke C. A summary of the vocabulary research with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Am Ann Deaf. 2010 Spring;155(1):38-67. doi: 10.1353/aad.0.0129. — View Citation

Lund E, Miller C, Douglas WM, Werfel K. Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Print Knowledge in Preschool Children with Hearing Loss. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2020 Dec;5(6):1366-1379. doi: 10.1044/2020_persp-20-00023. Epub 2020 Aug 17. — View Citation

Lund E. Vocabulary Knowledge of Children With Cochlear Implants: A Meta-Analysis. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2016 Apr;21(2):107-21. doi: 10.1093/deafed/env060. Epub 2015 Dec 27. — View Citation

Marsh EJ, Fazio LK, Goswick AE. Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. Memory. 2012;20(8):899-906. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2012.708757. Epub 2012 Aug 15. — View Citation

McDaniel J, Benitez-Barrera CR, Soares AC, Vargas A, Camarata S. Bilingual Versus Monolingual Vocabulary Instruction for Bilingual Children with Hearing Loss. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2019 Apr 1;24(2):142-160. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eny042. — View Citation

McDaniel J, Camarata S, Yoder P. Comparing Auditory-Only and Audiovisual Word Learning for Children With Hearing Loss. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2018 Oct 1;23(4):382-398. doi: 10.1093/deafed/eny016. — View Citation

McGregor KK, Gordon K, Eden N, Arbisi-Kelm T, Oleson J. Encoding Deficits Impede Word Learning and Memory in Adults With Developmental Language Disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017 Oct 17;60(10):2891-2905. doi: 10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0031. Erratum In: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2018 May 17;61(5):1293. — View Citation

Nittrouer S, Lowenstein JH, Antonelli J. Parental Language Input to Children With Hearing Loss: Does It Matter in the End? J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Dec 13;63(1):234-258. doi: 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00123. Print 2020 Jan 22. — View Citation

Qi S, Mitchell RE. Large-scale academic achievement testing of deaf and hard-of-hearing students: past, present, and future. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2012 Winter;17(1):1-18. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enr028. Epub 2011 Jun 28. — View Citation

Reimer, C. K. (2019). The effect of retrieval practice on vocabulary learning for children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Roberts MY. Parent-Implemented Communication Treatment for Infants and Toddlers With Hearing Loss: A Randomized Pilot Trial. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Jan 30;62(1):143-152. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0079. — View Citation

Ruben RJ. Language development in the pediatric cochlear implant patient. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2018 Apr 19;3(3):209-213. doi: 10.1002/lio2.156. eCollection 2018 Jun. — View Citation

Werfel KL. Emergent Literacy Skills in Preschool Children With Hearing Loss Who Use Spoken Language: Initial Findings From the Early Language and Literacy Acquisition (ELLA) Study. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2017 Oct 5;48(4):249-259. doi: 10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0023. — View Citation

* Note: There are 37 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Labeling - acquisition	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).
Primary	Labeling - retention	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	Identifying - acquisition	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).
Secondary	Semantic - acquisition	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).
Secondary	Identifying - retention	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
Secondary	Semantic - retention	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