Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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.
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contrast A | Experimental | Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials |
|
| Contrast B | Experimental | Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials |
|
| Contrast C | Experimental | Spaced vs massed trials without feedback |
|
| Contrast D | Experimental | Spaced vs massed trials with feedback |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feedback with massed trials | Behavioral | 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. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness | 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. | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
| Labeling - Acquisition Efficiency | 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. | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
| Labeling - Retention Effectiveness | 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. | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
| Labeling - Retention Efficiency | 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. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness | 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. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vanderbilt University Medical Center | Nashville | Tennessee | 37232 | United States |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 32052022 | Background | 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. | |
| Background | 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. | ||
| Background | Bjork, R. A. (1994). Memory and metamemory considerations in the. Metacognition: Knowing About Knowing, 185. | ||
| Background | 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. |
Not provided
Not provided
Graphs with individual data points will be reported in manuscripts that share the primary study findings. Sharing of such graphical data will permit inclusion of the project's results in future meta-analyses.
Data will become available when manuscripts are published.
Data will become available through the published manuscript(s).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Contrast A | Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials Feedback 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. No 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. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| FG001 | Contrast B | Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Feedback 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 in each session. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| FG002 | Contrast C | Spaced vs massed trials without feedback No 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. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| FG003 | Contrast D | Spaced vs massed trials with feedback Feedback 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. Feedback 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Contrast A | Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials Feedback 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. No 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. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
|
From initial eligibility visit until end of follow-up, up to 8 months
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Contrast A | Feedback vs no feedback with massed trials Feedback 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. No 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. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jena McDaniel | Vanderbilt University Medical Center | 615-936-5114 | jena.mcdaniel@vumc.org |
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot_SAP | Yes | Yes | No | Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan | Feb 7, 2025 | Jan 6, 2026 | Prot_SAP_001.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Feb 27, 2025 | Aug 20, 2025 | ICF_000.pdf |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D034381 | Hearing Loss |
| D007806 | Language Disorders |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D006311 | Hearing Disorders |
| D004427 | Ear Diseases |
| D010038 | Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases |
| D012678 | Sensation Disorders |
Not provided
Not provided
Adapted alternating treatments research design with 3 conditions per participant. Four participants are randomly assigned to each contrast (arm).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Feedback with spaced trials | Behavioral | 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. |
|
| No feedback with massed trials | Behavioral | 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. |
|
| No feedback with spaced trials | Behavioral | 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. |
|
| Four weeks after the intervention ends |
| End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
| Identifying - Acquisition Efficiency | 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. | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
| Semantic - Acquisition Effectiveness | 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. | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
| Semantic - Acquisition Efficiency | 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. | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
| Identifying - Retention Effectiveness | 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. | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
| Identifying - Retention Efficiency | 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. | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
| Semantic - Retention Effectiveness | 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. | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
| Semantic - Retention Efficiency | 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. | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
| 23584181 | Background | 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. |
| 24619508 | Background | 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. |
| 19857026 | Background | 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. |
| Background | Carpenter, S. K., & Yeung, K. L. (2017). The role of mediator strength in learning from retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 128-141. |
| 25312580 | Background | 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. |
| 17616915 | Background | 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. |
| 28759398 | Background | 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. |
| 21832889 | Background | 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. |
| Background | 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. |
| 30986145 | Background | 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. |
| Background | 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. |
| 27260595 | Background | 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. |
| 27014156 | Background | 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. |
| Background | 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. |
| Background | 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. |
| 21307357 | Background | 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. |
| 31805241 | Background | 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. |
| 30986142 | Background | 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. |
| 24294884 | Background | 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. |
| 20503907 | Background | 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. |
| 26712811 | Background | 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. |
| 33981844 | Background | 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. |
| 22891857 | Background | 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. |
| 30597033 | Background | 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. |
| 29767759 | Background | 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. |
| 28980007 | Background | 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. |
| 31834998 | Background | 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. |
| 21712463 | Background | 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. |
| 38330211 | Background | Reimer CK, Grantham H, Butler AC. The effect of retrieval practice on vocabulary learning for DHH children. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2024 Jun 24;29(3):377-387. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enae005. |
| 30535174 | Background | 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. |
| 30062136 | Background | 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. |
| 28973172 | Background | 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. |
| 24797442 | Background | 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. |
| BG001 | Contrast B | Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Feedback 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 in each session. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| BG002 | Contrast C | Spaced vs massed trials without feedback No 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. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| BG003 | Contrast D | Spaced vs massed trials with feedback Feedback 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. Feedback 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| BG004 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Fifth Edition) | Construct: receptive vocabulary. Scores presented are standard scores. Minimum score = 40. Maximum score = 160. The population mean is 100 and the population standard deviation is 15. Scores between 85 and 115 are considered within the typical range. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale |
|
| Expressive Vocabulary Test (Third Edition) | Construct: expressive vocabulary. Scores presented are standard scores. Minimum score = 40. Maximum score = 160. The population mean is 100 and the population standard deviation is 15. Scores between 85 and 115 are considered within the typical range. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale |
|
| Test of Language Development (Fourth Edition) | Test of Language Development (Fourth Edition) Spoken Language Index Score (based on scores from the 6 core subtests) Construct: spoken language (receptive and expressive). Scores presented are standard scores. Minimum score = 41. Maximum score = 165. The population mean is 100 and the population standard deviation is 15. Scores between 85 and 115 are considered within the typical range. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale |
|
| Arizona Articulation Phonology Test (Fourth Edition) | Construct: articulation. Scores presented are standard scores. Minimum score = 50. Maximum score = 125. The population mean is 100 and the population standard deviation is 15. Scores between 85 and 115 are considered within the typical range. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale |
|
| Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Second Edition) | Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (Second Edition) Phonological Awareness composite Construct: phonological awareness. Scores presented are standard scores. Minimum score = 43. Maximum score = 165. The population mean is 100 and the population standard deviation is 15. Scores between 85 and 115 are considered within the typical range. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. | Two participants did not complete the CTOPP | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale |
|
| Leiter International Performance Scale (Third Edition) Nonverbal IQ | Leiter International Performance Scale (Third Edition) Nonverbal IQ Composite Score Construct: nonverbal intelligence quotient. Scores presented are standard scores. Minimum score = 30. Maximum score = 170. The population mean is 100 and the population standard deviation is 15. Scores between 85 and 115 are considered within the typical range. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. | Mean | Standard Deviation | Scores on a scale |
|
| OG001 | Contrast B | Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Feedback 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 in each session. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| OG002 | Contrast C | Spaced vs massed trials without feedback No 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. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
| OG003 | Contrast D | Spaced vs massed trials with feedback Feedback 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. Feedback 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. |
|
|
| Primary | Labeling - Acquisition Efficiency | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 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 - Acquisition Efficiency | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 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 Effectiveness | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | 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 Efficiency | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | End of intervention. The intervention ends when the participant achieves >75% accuracy for labeling 3 sessions in a row (up to 6 months). |
|
|
|
| Primary | Labeling - Retention Effectiveness | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
|
|
|
| Primary | Labeling - Retention Efficiency | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Identifying - Retention Effectiveness | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Identifying - Retention Efficiency | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Semantic - Retention Effectiveness | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
|
|
|
| Secondary | Semantic - Retention Efficiency | 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. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Four weeks after the intervention ends |
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 3 |
| 0 |
| 3 |
| 0 |
| 3 |
| EG001 | Contrast B | Feedback vs no feedback with spaced trials Feedback 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 in each session. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| EG002 | Contrast C | Spaced vs massed trials without feedback No 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. No 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| EG003 | Contrast D | Spaced vs massed trials with feedback Feedback 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. Feedback 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 in each session. Participants complete these conditions simultaneously (i.e., one after another each session) for equivalent word sets, not sequentially. | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| D009461 |
| Neurologic Manifestations |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
| D003147 | Communication Disorders |
| D019954 | Neurobehavioral Manifestations |
| Between 18 and 65 years |
|
| >=65 years |
|
| Male |
|
| Asian |
|
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
|
| Black or African American |
|
| White |
|
| More than one race |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|