Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT05512000

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

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.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Hearing Loss Communication Disorders Ear Diseases Hearing Disorders Language Disorders Language Impairment Nervous System Diseases Neurobehavioral Manifestations Neurologic Manifestations Otorhinolaryngologic Diseases Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms Sensation Disorders Signs and Symptoms

Age range

5 year–9 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Nashville, Tennessee, 37232, United States

About this study

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.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

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

Treatment and study plan

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.

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.

Primary outcomes

  1. Labeling - Acquisition Effectiveness

    Time frame: 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.

  2. Labeling - Acquisition Efficiency

    Time frame: 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.

  3. Labeling - Retention Effectiveness

    Time frame: 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.

  4. Labeling - Retention Efficiency

    Time frame: 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 outcomes

  1. Identifying - Acquisition Effectiveness

    Time frame: 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.

  2. Identifying - Acquisition Efficiency

    Time frame: 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.

  3. Semantic - Acquisition Effectiveness

    Time frame: 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.

  4. Semantic - Acquisition Efficiency

    Time frame: 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.

  5. Identifying - Retention Effectiveness

    Time frame: 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.

  6. Identifying - Retention Efficiency

    Time frame: 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.

  7. Semantic - Retention Effectiveness

    Time frame: 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.

  8. Semantic - Retention Efficiency

    Time frame: 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.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Vanderbilt University Medical Center

Other

Registry information

Official study title

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

Important dates

Study start
2023
Primary completion
2025
Study completion
2025
First posted
Aug 23, 2022
Registry last updated
Mar 16, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Related clinical trials

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.